Planting the Seeds: Insights for Researchers Interested in Working With Indigenous Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health research in Canada carries a history of exploitation and cultural insensitivity in its approaches, resulting in a deeply rooted mistrust among Indigenous Peoples. Communities are signalling the urgent need for health research to be conducted in a more conscientious way. To address these gaps, our team of three Elders and three researchers co-developed a series of workshops in the province of British Columbia, Canada, in 2019 to increase participants’ knowledge and skills for conducting culturally responsive health research. Workshops examined power and privilege; self-awareness/self-reflection; Indigenous and Western worldviews; cultural safety; allyship; and research principles and practices. Activities were experiential and privileged Indigenous knowledges. An Indigenous-informed evaluation captured participants’ experiences via online surveys. Participants described workshop learnings as deeply impacting ways they approach research practice. Thematic analysis of participant reflections revealed three overarching themes: bringing together the mind and the heart; self-reflection and initiating change; and understanding cultural safety as a lifelong journey. Lessons learned by facilitators included the importance of applying Indigenous ways of knowing to create safe spaces for healing and learning; empowering participants to critically self-reflect; and rooting the work in ceremony. The ethical responsibility to allow time and space for meaningful dialogue was crucial for aligning with Indigenous protocols of coming together. This project demonstrates that experiential workshops, co- facilitated by Elders and researchers, are an innovative, effective, and Indigenous-centred approach for providing education on how to engage in culturally safe and culturally resonant research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".